Why be Damned ?

[Just thinking]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

 

[SomeGuy]

Because you as a human are born with original sin, and can only get rid of this by accepting Joshua of Nazareth as your saviour.

Some christians believe that the original sin is the eating of the apple of tree, other keep it more simple and just say that the original sin means that people are inherently bad.

Either way it doesn't make all that much sense, imnsho.

 

[Just thinking]

Because you as a human are born with original sin, and can only get rid of this by accepting Joshua of Nazareth as your saviour.

And where is the evidence of this "original sin" ?

Careful ... going back to the Bible as the source becomes circular.

 

[juryjone]

One thing that I've read here is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to use logic to argue against a stance that was not formulated with logic in the first place. The bible (and religion in general) does not rely on logic, but its antithesis: faith.

The best one could hope for is an outline of the articles of faith, so one could know how to apply their faith. Unfortunately, the bible is inconsistent in its requirements, so it doesn't even make sense within its own framework. That's why there's always a whole lot of interpretin' goin' on.

 

[drkitten]

And where is the evidence of this "original sin"?

One obvious piece of evidence is the inability of humans to behave in a completely moral fashion. Another obviouss piece of evidence is the observation that the younger a person is, the less capable they seem to be of acting in a moral fashion (children routinely act towards each other in the sandbox in ways that would result in criminal prosecutions among adults). Children have to be taught to be polite, obedient, respectful, generous, and so forth -- they don't do it naturally.

There is obviously some aspect of human nature that is not-good. Since sin is a general word for the not-good, and since it seems to be present from the origin of humans, "original sin" seems a reasonable term for this apect. If you have a better term than "original sin," I invite your input.

(This is one of the key aspects of the traditional "Protestant confirmation," as referenced by various books like Pilgrim's Progress. Awareness of sin does not come from studying the Bible, but from simply studying the human condition. The Bible doesn't teach about sin and evil -- the world does that. The Bible teaches about escape from sin and evil.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

One obvious piece of evidence is the inability of humans to behave in a completely moral fashion. Another obviouss piece of evidence is the observation that the younger a person is, the less capable they seem to be of acting in a moral fashion (children routinely act towards each other in the sandbox in ways that would result in criminal prosecutions among adults). Children have to be taught to be polite, obedient, respectful, generous, and so forth -- they don't do it naturally.

There is obviously some aspect of human nature that is not-good. Since sin is a general word for the not-good, and since it seems to be present from the origin of humans, "original sin" seems a reasonable term for this apect. If you have a better term than "original sin," I invite your input.

(This is one of the key aspects of the traditional "Protestant confirmation," as referenced by various books like Pilgrim's Progress. Awareness of sin does not come from studying the Bible, but from simply studying the human condition. The Bible doesn't teach about sin and evil -- the world does that. The Bible teaches about escape from sin and evil.)

Oh, sure. The Bible and Christian dogma's such a great moral guide.

 

[-Fran-]

Because religions think they need as many members as possible, and they have thought up these things to scare people into staying, and new ones to join. It's the "blind faith or suffer" thing. Whatever reason they may have for this particular threat are just more or less logic rationalizations. To scare people into blind faith is the main underlying reason.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Even when I was a Christian , I never believed that God damned anyone simply because of them not being a Christian. But then I wasn't the sort of Christian that took the bible as "gospel" so to speak. Maybe that's why I no longer believe. I could never accept that an answer to a question could besimply, "because it says so in the bible". I always wanted to know, "well WHY does God say that such and such is a sin?".

 

[Tanstaafl]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

Because this makes it easier to frighten you into joining the cult.

 

[Hokulele]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

To differentiate the Christians from the Muslims. How else would God know which faithful people to condemn to the Pit?


(Note, this is sarcasm.)

 

[Beerina]

Why be damned indeed, given it all could be replaced in a microsecond.

Since God is infinitely powerful, he could wave away this reality and put everyone up in their own mansion, with no way to harm each other. Give everyone their own universe to play with. Whatever.

There is no need for any of the crap you see around you. Therefore either God doesn't exist, or does, but is not capable of stopping this, or could, but does not because he isn't good.

God could, as a last resort, replace, say, the mind of a little girl being raped and murdered, with the a brainless automaton. The perpetrator would get to act out every bit of "evil", from his point of view, that God seems to think is so necessary.

And if God thinks an actual little girl needs to experience that, that god is not good.

 

[Just thinking]

One obvious piece of evidence is the inability of humans to behave in a completely moral fashion.

OK, but there are other sources one can turn to in learning how to behave morally. Obviously there were moral codes prior to the time of Christ, and many of them included (if not surpassed) the intent of the "10 Commandments" and/or the teachings of Jesus.

Another obviouss piece of evidence is the observation that the younger a person is, the less capable they seem to be of acting in a moral fashion (children routinely act towards each other in the sandbox in ways that would result in criminal prosecutions among adults). Children have to be taught to be polite, obedient, respectful, generous, and so forth -- they don't do it naturally.

Again, there are other sources than Jesus.

There is obviously some aspect of human nature that is not-good. Since sin is a general word for the not-good, and since it seems to be present from the origin of humans, "original sin" seems a reasonable term for this apect. If you have a better term than "original sin," I invite your input.

This now gets down to the nitty-gritty of Good and Evil. What some might call bad aspects of human nature might be deemed good if not necessary by others --- or to one's survival. Some would say the slaughter of life for food is sacrilege, while others say it was God's intent for animals to be the servants of man (in all ways). Deeper investigations into the origins of these behaviors seem to indicate survival needs for the regions in which these peoples lived.

(This is one of the key aspects of the traditional "Protestant confirmation," as referenced by various books like Pilgrim's Progress. Awareness of sin does not come from studying the Bible, but from simply studying the human condition. The Bible doesn't teach about sin and evil -- the world does that. The Bible teaches about escape from sin and evil.)

Good points ... but what is the reasoning that believers in a particular faith (such as Christianity) use as the crux for accepting that even if all others do the above but have no faith in their God, they are damned? Surely if the purpose of Jesus was to teach the proper way to live and behave toward one another, then one already doing so (for the most part -- more than some believers) should not be damned. Yet they are, or at least are believed to be.

 

[godless dave]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

God is obviously a narcissist who wants people to constantly tell him how great he is.

 

[JonM1121]

Good points ... but what is the reasoning that believers in a particular faith (such as Christianity) use as the crux for accepting that even if all others do the above but have no faith in their God, they are damned? Surely if the purpose of Jesus was to teach the proper way to live and behave toward one another, then one already doing so (for the most part -- more than some believers) should not be damned. Yet they are, or at least are believed to be.

There seems to be the general suggestion here that there is an internal inconsistency to the generalized Christian statement "To achieve (x) you must do because I (God) say so." If a person has accepted the basic tenet that God's "will" (in the classic philosophical sense) self-defines, then I don't see a LOGICAL problem with accepting any tenet that under that faith, whether it be accepting jesus, not eating grapefruit, or masturbating into a paper cup every tuesday. Of course, most of us on here are going to have a problem with the deity part, but I'm not convinced that AFTER you accept the idea that God exists you can be criticized for being illogical your determination of what you have to do to make that god not burn you.

 

[Beerina]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

Ahhhh, Jesus did say, "The withered tree cannot bear fruit, and the healthy tree cannot help but to bear fruit", didn't he? The downfall of the John 3:16 quoters.

 

[Just thinking]

Ahhhh, Jesus did say, "The withered tree cannot bear fruit, and the healthy tree cannot help but to bear fruit", didn't he? The downfall of the John 3:16 quoters.

There's meaning in that? ... beyond the obvious, I mean.

 

[Ralph]

One bit of "logic" I've heard over at RR recently states that god doesn't really put anybody in hell.

People do that to themselves by choosing to not accept jesus as saviour.

They also seem to feel that everybody in their lifetime will get exposed to jesus and they damned well better make the right choice. Being raised your entire life under a different faith
and getting just a 15 minute smattering of jesus but failing to convert is no excuse.

Don't blame god-you should have known better.

 

[Trakar]

Can someone please offer a reasonable explanation as to why not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior will doom me to an eternity in Hell? Even if I live what the Bible would say is a proper life --- for the most part? What is it that makes this particular belief so critical? (And please, no circular Bible quoting, just straightforward logic. --- I know, I'm asking a bit much.)

The key thing to remember/realize here is that the "hell" spoken of is seperation from Jesus for all eternity. If you reject Jesus, being cut off from Him for all eternity shouldn't really bother you that much. The primary glory of heaven is union with God, the primary punishment of hell is the seperation from God. All the rest are metaphoric analogies of what those who believe in God/Jesus would experience if they were joined with (heaven), or seperated from (hell), God do to their actions.

 

[arthwollipot]

Really? Because I was under the impression that there was some kind of lake of fire involved as well.

 

[-Fran-]

Really? Because I was under the impression that there was some kind of lake of fire involved as well.

There are surely Christian groups as well who belive in hell as an actual physical place with a lake of fire and brimstone and all that stuff.